U.S. Has Limited Options on Iran
(Note: A shorter version of this commentary originally appeared in The Honolulu Advertiser on June 28, 2009)
For the last several weeks, Americans have been observing the scenes from Iran of demonstrators protesting peacefully against the allegedly rigged results of the national elections, and the rough tactics adopted by the paramilitary to suppress them. A number of lives have been lost, and uncounted additional ones have been injured. Many in the United States, including prominent politicians, have called for a stronger reaction from the United States to help the demonstrators, but the options available to the U.S. are very limited.
The hostility of the Iranian government towards the United States stems from the overthrow in 1953 of the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh by the CIA, with encouragement from Britain, whose major oil company had been nationalized by Mossadegh. This is the same Mossadegh that Time magazine had named its Man of the Year in 1952, calling him the “Iranian George Washington.” The person mainly responsible for coordinating the coup was Kermit Roosevelt Jr., a senior officer in the CIA’s Middle Eastern Division, and grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt. The U.S. then re-installed the Shah of Iran as emperor.
The Shah was finally overthrown in the Iranian revolution of 1979, and an Islamic Republic was established. The following year, Saddam Hussein attacked Iran, and when it looked as if he might lose, America came to his rescue, ostensibly to maintain a balance of power in the region. Hundreds of thousands of Iranian lives were lost during the eight years of war, and many Iranians have not forgotten the help the United States provided to the aggressor Saddam’s regime.
As President Obama stated in one of his recent speeches on the crisis, this history of U.S. involvement in Iran has made it particularly difficult for America to do more to help the protesters. The president has been precisely right in his carefully chosen words, indicating support for the right of all peoples to protest peacefully and condemning actions that result in loss of lives, but not raising hopes that the United States will interfere militarily in what is going on in Iran. He has made clear that it is the Iranian people, and not other countries, who will decide who governs them.
The same neo-conservative voices that used to claim that we would be welcomed with roses in Iraq are making similar claims now about how a more active role by the U.S. would be well-received by the Iranians. On the contrary, no prominent politician in Iran wants to be identified as being supported by the U.S., since it would make it easier for the regime to discredit him as carrying out the wishes of a disliked foreign power.
Further, the past results of our encouragement of local efforts for greater freedom have not been good for the local populations. We encouraged the Hungarian uprising against the Soviet Union in 1956, and watched helplessly as the Soviet army crushed it. After the first Gulf War, we encouraged the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds to rise against Saddam, and stood by as they were massacred by the ex-dictator’s army.
We do not have diplomatic relations with Iran, so we cannot break them to express our displeasure. We already have tough sanctions against Iran because of its nuclear program, and can make them tougher still. Beyond that, our ability to influence events in Iran is very limited.
The situation in Iran is evolving rapidly, and it is in our interest that some arrangement comes out of the turmoil which would allow more freedom of expression for the people of Iran and more opportunities for interaction with the international community. The United States will still need to negotiate with the leadership of Iran about the nuclear issue, guarantees for Iran’s own security, and the greater integration of Iran with the global community. Ultimately, that is where the interests of most Iranians and Americans coincide.
Toufiq Siddiqi is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at the East-West Center and President of Global Environment and Energy in the 21st Century. He can be reached at SiddiqiT@EastWestCenter.org.
Dr. Siddiqi’s work includes an analysis of natural gas pipelines providing energy to India and Pakistan from Iran, the Gulf States, or Central Asia. The views expressed in this article are his own, and do not necessarily reflect those of any organization with which he is associated.
##
The EAST-WEST CENTER is an education and research organization established by the U.S. Congress in 1960 to strengthen relations and understanding among the peoples and nations of Asia, the Pacific, and the United States. The Center contributes to a peaceful, prosperous and just Asia Pacific community by serving as a vigorous hub for cooperative research, education and dialogue on critical issues of common concern to the Asia Pacific region and the United States. Funding for the Center comes from the U.S. government, with additional support provided by private agencies, individuals, foundations, corporations and the governments of the region.
Click here for daily news on the Pacific Islands.
Click here for links to all East-West Center media programs, fellowships and services.
